I've read some interesting stuff about this, which I don't quite have at my fingertips at the moment and thus can't link.

First off was the attempt by Al-Jazeera to push an interesting narrative, that this was a coup sponsored by the US.  However, their efforts have been pretty widely panned due to the fact that their evidence is based on a logical fallacy.  The US government had sent money to some pro-democracy, anti-Mubarak activists before the uprising.  Those same people are now in the new, post-Morsi government.  So, obviously, the US sponsored it.

By several accounts, the credibility of Al-Jazeera in Arabic has been seriously damaged as a result, though it has been suffering pretty consistently since the old new director was forced out and replaced with a member of the Qatari royal family.

I read another rather interesting article on Morsi and his flaws by an Egyptian activist, whose main point was really about the hardening us vs. them attitude in the pro- and anti- camps, and how neither side is willing to talk, or even acknowledge the existence of evidence that goes against their preferred narrative.  Nothing new in the history of world events, I suppose, but it was an interesting discussion.

Finally, I also read a piece by another Egyptian, this time an academic I think, whose basic argument was that Morsi was not simply incompetent and tone deaf, but that the Muslim Brotherhood was sufficiently insular at the top (especially after purging the majority of its youth leaders 5 or 6 years ago, many of whom are involved in the anti-Morsi protests now - according to yet another article I can't source) that a move towards proper authoritarianism, if not fascism, was quite plausible given his moves towards the end.